I've been a fan of Amy Adams for a while but this film might be the one that makes me fall completely in love with her. It's good to see her playing a normal person; I was afraid that she was always playing "characters" and never really seemed completely grounded in the real world. While her character Julie does have her moments, she seems like the most "normal" modern person that Adams has played since perhaps Ricky Bobby's assistant in "Talladega Nights".

As for Meryl Streep, her take on Julia Childs seems amazing and kudos to the cinematographer for making her seem like the gigantic Childs (Streep is 5'6). Other actors should look to Streep for direction in how to move into comedy without selling one's soul.

This film definitely moves into my top ten most anticipated films (it comes out August 7th).

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Only three more days to send in your predictions for the top ten grossing summer blockbusters (and how much they are going to pull in). A whopping zero people have signed up so far so I'm thinking the original prize is DOA but the winner will still get something. A sur-prize! Maybe even a SoulHonky t-shirt.

Send your picks to admin@soulhonky.com and best the Soulhonky! Or you can even beat "Pirates of the Caribbean" scribe Terry Rossio's picks. He didn't enter the SoulHonky contest but posted his picks at his Wordplayer site. Will Wolverine best his prediction of 178 million?

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a Q&A with screenwriter John August (Go, Big Fish, The Nines). It's almost two hours long but August is an interesting writer and his blog is one of the better ones out there for screenwriters so it might be worth a listen.

August also has "scriptcasts" on his site. It's an interesting approach to advice; August basically speaks and shows his method by rewriting an existing scene.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

No new releases really caught my eye so I decided to go with an old, overlooked favorite. Mad Season was a "superband" formed in 1994 by members of the Seattle grunge movement, most notable Alice in Chains' Layne Staley and Pearl Jam's Mike McCready. "River of Deceit" is one of my favorite songs of all-time and the rest of the album grows on you. I wasn't a huge fan when I first listened to it but the songs really grew on me. The sequencing of the album is a little strange. "X-Ray Mind" is kind of a throwaway song; I would probably swap it with "I Don't Know Anything"

It's a very interesting first album and I really wish we had had a chance to hear a second take by these guys. Alas it never materialized and Layne Staley passed away in 2002.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

So Air Force One scared the bejeezus out of New Yorkers today. While this isn't really huge news, it is yet another lapse of judgement for the Obama White House. So far I've agreed with most things that Obama has done but he keeps tripping over these matters of protocol. And in some cases, not paying attention to details has bitten him where it counts, most notably when they let bailout money go to CEO bonuses.

Hopefully President Obama and the White House corps is getting their act together but these gaffes are becoming troubling since they seem to be happening with such frequency. Even if they don't amount to much more than noise, the noise alone can be used to distract voters and possibly lead to a shake up in 2010. Let's get it together, people. We expect these kinds of gaffes out of VP Biden; it's not OK for everyone else to keep slipping up.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week's Song of the Day will again be new releases. I've already posted the new single from The Dave Matthews Band over this past weekend and today's song is from one of my favorite new artists, Paolo Nutini. Unfortunately, I'm not a huge fan of the new song but maybe it will grow on me. I don't think it will but stranger things have happened.

As usual, I'm always open to suggestions. I don't really have any other songs picked out right now so some ideas would be appreciated.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Shepard Smith is one of the few people that I find myself agreeing with pretty often on Fox News. And while Shep usually does a good job of keeping his cool, he does start spouting off now and then and The Daily Beast recently listed their favorite mad moments. My favorite (and one I wholeheartedly agree with) is Shep getting angry about people mentioning that terror tactics were effective, as if that excuses us for torturing people. He even manages to get an F-bomb out there on live TV.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So which summer films have the Soulhonky the most excited? Unfortunately, Wolverine does indeed make the top ten list. I've learned my lesson with Transformers (or have I? I'm not that excited about it but I might still see it in the theaters).

Personally, there just aren't that many movies that I want to rush out and see. It might be a sign of the drop in quality in Hollywood or it might be that I'm getting older and falling out of the key demographic. Both are probably true. This summer seems lackluster to me. Still, I was able to compile a list of ten films I'm (somewhat) eagerly awaiting.

Which films are you most eagerly anticipating... or eagerly anticipating the most... or are anticipated with the most eageriousness... or something. You know what I mean.

10. Bruno: I don't know. Maybe the Ali G period is over for me but I'm really not THAT excited about this film. I think it could be the funniest film of the year but something just doesn't seem as relevant. With normal gay couples fighting for their rights, why is watching people mock an over-the-top homosexual man going to be insightful? We shall see.

9. The Ugly Truth: I haven't hidden my affection for rom-coms nor my appreciation for Katherine Heigl. Add in Gerard Butler and you have a film that I'll most definitely be interested in seeing. Granted, it seems like a "Leave the Island" type movie; Wedding Crashers was hilarious but then they left the island and the plot overtook the laughs. This seems like a film that will have a lot of fun but then the heartstrings will starting getting pulled and the jokes will cease. Still, I'll give it a shot.

8. 500 Days of Summer: Yes, it seems like it could be a little too hipsterish but I loved "Garden State" so I'm somewhat immune to the trying-to-be-cool mojo that some of these indie romances have. I also like the idea that the trailer puts out there, that it's not really a "love story". I'm hoping that it is a refreshing take on the indie romance.

7. X-Men Origins: Wolverine: I can bash it until the day it comes out and I'll probably bash it the moment I walk out of the theater but the bottom line is that I will be there on opening weekend, hoping against hope that I'm wrong and that they made a quality film.

6. GI Joe: Rise of Cobra: I actually think this is going to be worse than Wolverine but they haven't dropped a terrible film before this (and one that killed most of the good will that came from the classic X2) and the kid in me really wants to see the live-action movie. Going in, I know that it's aimed for kids and, honestly, anyone who complains about that really needs to shut up. It's based on a cartoon in which people always managed to parachute out of their jets before they were shot down/exploded. The trailer looked awkward at best but I'm hoping for some mindless entertainment.

5. Rudo y Cursi: As a fan of sports films, I'm always hoping for someone to revitalize the genre. I love "Remember the Titans" but it spawned a decade of clones, none of which were able to match it. This film is supposedly more focused on the lives of the brothers than the sport they play but it's still a film that I hope can inspire a new era in sports films.

4. Star Trek: I've watched the original series and some episodes of Next Generation but I don't recall ever really sitting down to watching the movies except for Generations which was pretty bad. Also, I'm not a huge fan of JJ Abrams who, to me, seems like a guy who can bring a film or show to the brink of greatness but he always manages to find a way to not just pull it back but throw it on the ground and stomp on it until it's only mediocre. Then I saw the trailer. It's been some time since a trailer turned my opinion on a film around and that's exactly what Star Trek's trailer did. I'm also interested in seeing if Chris Pine can carry the weight and if he might be able to go where fellow Chris's (Klein and Evans) couldn't - to the A-list.

3. Public Enemies: I'm rooting for this because I really hope we get to see more major summer releases that are aimed towards adults. All too often, films like this get packed into the end of the year when everyone is clamoring for Oscar. Why not try to make some money? Part of me is ready to be disappointed but I'm still eagerly awaiting the film as well as the box office it takes in. Hopefully it can be Michael Mann's biggest film ever and shows studio execs that people will go to see films when school is out.

2. Terminator: Salvation: The first trailer made me forget all of my concerns about McG's direction but I still am a little nervous about it. While it makes for a good trailer, I'm nervous about whether the plot will be strong enough to hold the film together. Granted, I'm a fan of Bryce Dallas Howard and Moon Bloodgood so flashiing them up on the screen should be able to tide me over in spite of any plot holes but it'd be nice to see a film finds the right balance that the original and T2 did: enough plot to raise the bar but not too much to bog the film down.

1. The Brothers Bloom: I'm a big fan of "Brick", love con movies, and am a fan of the first 7 minutes which I posted yesterday. This is the one film that I could see myself going to a midnight showing of. Rachel Weisz is amazing in the trailer and I feel like Mark Ruffalo and Adrian Brody are two actors who've been waiting for the right role. Hopefully this is it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Each year on the Wordplayer message board, people throw down their predictions for the Summer Box Office. Last year, I woefully underestimated the power of Iron Man and this year I feel like I'm once again guessing low on the receipts of the first May release (Wolverine). In fact, I might be below the mark on most of my guesses. But I'm sticking with this instant analysis.

To spice things up (and to see if anyone is really out there) I'm going to make my own contest for the Summer Box Office with the prize being gift certificate to Amazon or your online DVD retailer of choice. The amount of the DVD will be .0000005 percent of the domestic gross of the biggest grossing movie of the Summer. And just in case my math is wrong, I'm saying that last year, "The Dark Knight" made 533 million and the gift certificate would have been for $266.50. Spiderman 3 would have given the winner $168. (And just in case something incredible happens, I'm capping the gift certificate at $500 bucks but I really don't think any film is going to make a billion dollars this summer).

At this point, I'd like to remind readers to click on the web ads on this page. Not that that would pay for the prize (I've made less than 10 bucks so far. Total) but it might be nice to make a little scratch to put towards this.

E-mail your Top Ten picks and how much you think they will gross to admin@soulhonky.com and I'll send an e-mail back to confirm your picks. The confirmation e-mail might not come until that evening (I gotta job, y'know).  The eligible films have to be released from Ma 1st to the last day in August. The deadline is midnight on April 30th. I'll try to set up a little offshoot web page for the contest. 

I haven't quite come up with the exact scoring but I'm thinking something like: 5 points for picking the correct place a film comes in, 25 points for being the closest contestant to the final US domestic theatrical gross, 20 for 2nd, 15 for 3rd, 10 for 4th, 5 for 5th, and -10 points if one of your picks doesn't even crack the top 10. I might change it up depending on the number of entrants. (And if only a handful of people sign up, I'm cancelling the contest outright.)

For lists of release dates, go to Boxofficemojo.com or just google film release dates. To see the official SoulHonky picks, keep reading.

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - 335 million

A surprising number of people seem to love the first movie so I think that this one will make slightly more money. Still, I can't bring myself to predict that it will break the 400 dollar mark.

2. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - 310 million

If there's one movie that has me worried about shelling out more money than I want, it's this one. But none of the Harry Potter movies have grossed over 300 million domestically and this one is supposedly darker so it might lose some of the kiddie audience.

3. GI Joe: Rise of Cobra - 275 million

I'm going to say that this one makes less than Transformers because there are no fighting robots and the initial trailers haven't made it look very good. This film could make a lot less, especially since it looks more like a standard action film than a kid's movie.

4. Star Trek - 265 million

Arguably the best trailer of the year so far (at least for summer films) and JJ Abrams's name will get this a lot of money. But the sci-fi stigma will likely keep it from really making a mint.

5. Terminator: Salvation - 245 million

I originally had this a 290 million but I'm thinking the lack of kid draw as well as the lukewarm reception to the last Terminator movie will knock it down a bit.

6. Up - 220 million

This film doesn't seem all that interesting (at first glance at least) and it's coming during a run of kids movies so I'm not sure how well it will do. Still, it's Pixar so I'm not going to bet against it breaking the 200 million mark. 

7. Night at the Museum 2 - 218 million

I could regret this pick but I really believe that the last one made a good chunk of change because of the timing of the release. It had next to no competition in terms of kid flicks as opposed to this year when it is facing competition from Up, Land of the Lost, and Imagine That. I'm probably way to low on this one so

8. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs - 210 million

How strong it the Ice Age franchise? I really don't know but this one has dinosaurs and this has a few weeks between it and the previous kid's films so I'm going to say it'll do better than the previous films.

9. Angels & Demons - 207 million

Were people really impressed with Da Vinci Code? I wasn't and I'm not banking on this flick making too much more than 200 million.

10. Wolverine - 205 million

I'll probably regret this prediction as much as I'll regret going to see the actual movie, but I don't think it will make more than X3. I think it will have a huge opening and then drop by 65%. Or it could be this year's Iron Man, who knows?

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Check out the opening sequence over at Hulu. Thanks to Slashfilm.com for tweeting about this. Yes, I actually found something on Twitter to be useful.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on Wolverine.

Apple.com/trailers has an internet trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine and it basically looks a lot like the past trailers except this time they thought it was a good idea to let Will.I.Am speak. The film also relies, yet again, on the almost comical money shot of Wolverine flying towards a helicopter and latching on for dear life. On one hand, I'm happy that they don't show us too much footage but they should have found a better selling point than that ridiculous moment. If that's the best they have to offer, I can't imagine it's going to be good. After all, with a baker's dozen worth of new mutants or younger version of familiar X-Men, it's not like this film is going to have any story or character development to lean on if the action scenes disappoint.

All in all, the film looks like it will be as bad as X3 yet I'm still going to go see it. Can I really complain about the marketing era of Hollywood when I keep falling for it; going to franchises that I have no faith in just to pass the time? What will it take for me to give up on the X-Men franchise?

Are there any films that get you ready and willing to throw 12 bucks down the drain? A sequel that you'd go to see even if you knew it was going to be lackluster? I spared myself the mistake of seeing Spiderman 3 or Superman Returns but there's something about the Wolverine character. If I was a bigger Jim Jarmusch fan I could at least go to see his new film, "The Limits of Control" first but I'm not a huge fan.  Who knows, maybe something else will strike me fancy or I'll decide to actually start reading something.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Tinted Windows" gets the slot as this week's Tryout simply for being arguably the stangest supergroup ever. Most times people from different bands come together, there seems to be a legit connection. In this case, we have members of Cheap Trick, Hanson, Smashing Pumpkins, and Fountains of Wayne. I guess they are all poppy outfits but I don't think anyone would have called this matchup even five years ago, nevermind way back when the bands were actually popular.

Who knows it if will be any good but it's at least worth a try, no?

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Children of the Nintendo Age will probably love this song. It's dirty and not safe for works or little kids but it's a great rap for any fans of baseball, virtual or real.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For some reason, I thought of Kenny Loggins this morning. I wasn't sure about making him the featured artist for the Song of the Day but then I saw his "Danger Zone" video and realized that the man needed a SoulHonky shoutout. There's a fine line between suave and just not doing anything at all and Kenny straddles that line. I'm not sure if the video of him laying around in bed was a creative decision or that they couldn't get Kenny to leave his hotel room. You decide.

On a related note, the Essential Kenny Loggins doesn't feature the first Song of the Day "Playing with the Boys", an odd omission seeing as it has been featured in more movies than probably any of his other songs.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So the infamous torture memos came out and as was expected, they were greeted with the right and left sprinting to the extremes. As usual, the truth lies in the middle and, by moving to their far left/right, many people and pundits are running away from common sense. While the Left is denouncing sleep deprivation and putting a bug in a room with someone who's afraid of bugs, the right is defending everything.

To me, a prisoner of war is going to face some hostility. After all, the word "war" is in there and that's going to raise the level of acceptable treatment as opposed to a prisoner of the State. I try to judge things by what would I find unacceptable treatment if our courageous troops had to face it. Sleep deprivation and modified diets seem like a given for a prisoner of war. The issue of the bug would only cross the line if say a person who allergic to bees and you stuck him in a room with bees. In that case, you're putting the soldier's life in danger. I also think telling him that the bug is poisonous is crossing the line. It's like sticking a gun to the the head of a suspect; it doesn't matter if it is loaded or not, it's crossing the line either way. However, if the person just doesn't like insects, I really don't think sticking an insect in with them is tantamount to torture.

When you start to discuss physical violence, however, you start to enter the gray area. I expect American soldiers to face some beatings but I think if you are beating someone to the point of unconsciousness, then you are crossing the line. Waterboarding is an obvious torture method and I really don't understand how anyone can defend it. 

In an interview on The O'Reilly Factor, Karl Rove defended the procedure citing that the US always had medical people standing by. While he thinks that's a defense, I see that as an admission of guilt. Maybe it's me but if you are doing something that makes you think "You know, we should probably have a doctor around just in case." then you are crossing the line. Again, it's like putting a gun in a man's face. Threatening to kill someone (which is what "simulated drowing" is) is a step too far.

The conservative response is that waterboarding helped get quality information out of prisoners. This is not a legitimate argument. You could also get great information if you kidnapped the person's family and threatened to kill them in front of the prisoner. Obviously that's an extreme example but it goes to show that there's a difference between effective and moral. What made America great was that we never blurred that line. We stood by our morals even if it made things more difficult. We didn't take the easy road and then try to rationalize our misdeeds later.

I'm torn on whether White House officials should stand trial for these errors in judgement (that might have been outright war crimes) but I think, at the very least, there needs to be a full fledged Congressional investigation into what happened and how we let it happen. I know that this might not be the justice that people on the Left are crying for or the maintaining of the status quo that the right seems to favor but we need to make sure that this type of thing never happens again and that America doesn't sink to the levels of our foes.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

David Simon (writer of Homicide, The Wire, and Generation Kill) was recently on Bill Moyers's PBS show. David Simon is always a great interview. Here's a link to the video of the interview.

Also:

- A look inside the mind of a Hollywood marketing person.

- Vanity Fair's piece about The Godfather.

- A link to "Pilot School", a site with the scripts to countless TV pilots.

-  And here's a link to TED, a site that has bits of lectures from some of the most inspiring minds in the world.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rachel McAdams's presence in "State of Play" gives it a weird feel, well for me at least. At once it was refreshing to see McAdams back on the big screen, where she more than held her own against Russell Crowe. On the other hand, there was something about the film that just seemed worn. It's a tried-and-true political thriller that is well-directed, the acting is great from top-to-bottom, and it keeps you on your toes. It was directed Kevin Macdonald, who did "The Last King of Scotland" and "Dupicity" & "Michael Clayton" writer Tony Gilroy (who adapted the film along with a couple of other writers). So just imagine those two guys bringing you a film that is like "The Interpreter" meets Micheal Keaton's "The Paper." Better yet, imagine "All the President's Men" if modern studio execs got their hands on it, upped the violence a little, and focused on keeping the pace up (to the detriment of the tension and struggle). In terms of quality, I'd say it's a notch below Russell Crowe's "3:10 to Yuma".

If you need constant action to keep your attention or have trouble following stories if they don't spell out everything, you might have some issues but, all in all, it's a good film. I wouldn't give it a SoulHonky recommendation but let's just say that it's probably the most agreeable film that's out right now. Everybody will be happy to go see it but nobody will be thrilled by it. If I was giving it a letter grade, it would be a solid enough B.

For the spoiler filled reaction, continue reading.

Tony Gilroy had a hand in this and I have to say that for all of his strong dialogue and deft twists, he has a nasty habit of saving the most cliched turn for last. "Michael Clayton" relied on the tired hidden tape recorder trick (something which hasn't been fresh since the ending of the otherwise sub-par "The Recruit") and in this one he uses the worn out Someone Said More Than They Should Know device. While I know that most people can overlook these played out elements, I always feel disappointed when a film has to rely on them. It's almost like getting through to the last board of a video game and then having the final villain be the easiest one to beat.

And when it comes down to it, the problem with the film is that everything came too easily. Nobody really stonewalled them, everything fell into place, the report was never really threatened until the end. We never really saw them make choices. They noticed Domnic Foy early on but just decided not to follow up on him until later. They were always ahead of the story and seemed unfazed by any setbacks. The guy getting shot in front of McAdams only merited a momentary questioning of what they were doing. It seemed like the producers were so focused on keeping the pace going that they never let any moments sit. Even the seemingly final defeat (when nobody was on record and the new parent corporation wouldn't print it) lasts for only an instance before Ben comes in to save the day. To me, it kind of made it an empty ride.

Also, what was at stake? Blowing the lid off of a Washington coverup? It was "All the President's Men" except without the weight of it being a true story. Now I don't need it to turn into "Enemy of the State" but it would be nice for there to be some kind of looming threat. Yes, there was the assassin but he didn't really affect them. Not once did someone think that they should stop covering the story for fear of their lives.

Robin Wright Penn's character felt like a vestigial limb. The wife plays a much bigger role in the miniseries (Cal actually sleeps with her) but here it's just kind of piling on; as if being a friend wasn't enough of a conflict of interest, he also used the sleep with the wife. It didn't add anything and really all it did was possibly make the audience wonder, "Why would you leave a guy this connected on the story?" Which was another missing stake; how come there was nary a threat of ripping him from the coverage.

I have to wonder if they made the right decision when adapting it from a soapier mini-series which focused more on the relationships in the newsroom than the actual story. While I know there was a hope that it would be a love letter to newspapers, I almost feel like it would have been better if it had focused on McAdams' character; a blogger who wanted to elevate her game and be accepted as a true reporter. Or at least have the two clash a bit more or have Cal someone who is more on the outs. Make it so this story might be his last big moment in the sun and that's one of the reasons that he's so focused on it. Do something to add to his character besides the weak "I'm a reporter!" motivation. It reminded me of the play version of "A Few Good Men" which included a clunky "Lawyers Rule!" speech that was rightfully removed from the film. As OK as the movie was, I can't help but think that there was a better movie to be mined out of the mini-series (which was only OK as well).

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've posted my playoff predictions up over at Can Danny? With the injuries to Manu and KG, it looks like a LeBron vs. Kobe Finals is a sure thing.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I doubt that this will be the first Iraq movie to make a bundle of money but it just might be the best modern day war movie since Three Kings. Also, it's nice to see former Barney's Beanery regular Jeremy Renner continue to do good work.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's tough to figure out which I'd rather see: the tea parties fizzling or for the conservative to come out in droves. I don't want to hear Hannity and Co. go on and on about how great the tea parties were but, at the same time, I don't want to hear Keith Olberman gloat if the Tea Parties fail to muster up many supporters. Of course, regardless of the outcome, I'm sure MSNBC and Fox News will claim victory so it's kind of silly to worry about it either way. I'd say that MSNBC and Fox News were two sides of the same coin but coins have actual value. (And I'm now going to make a resolution to try not to ever complain about MSNBC or Fox on my blog again since it's a waste of time and makes me no better than them.)

As for the tea parties themselves, the actual tax complaints seem to ring hollow. It's like a lot of people getting together to scream, "I Love America... but I don't want to pay for it." On top of that, there isn't even a shared cause. Some people don't like that we're spending so much money. Other people don't like various tax hikes. More than a few still think Obama is a socialist. One site wrote, "As unemployment soars and anger over Wall Street bailouts mounts, public outrage will seek an outlet." I'm sorry but if you don't want Wall Street bailouts then odds are that even more people are going to be unemployed. This complaint strikes me as someone getting mad at the fire department, As the fire burns and firemen get your house all wet... The Clinton and Bush administrations screwed everything up and now we're going to have to fix it. And that's going to cost money.

At the end of the day, I really wish people would just stop spending so much time and money on ad campaigns and random protests and use the money to actually help someone. The state of child care in America could be helped immensely if the money spent arguing over abortion was put towards improving schools, foster care, child health care, what have you. The amount of money that is raised for political campaigns could solve most problems. Some reports have the two major Presidential candidates raising over a billion dollars. I know that isn't going to make a dent in the big problems or help military spending but it could do a lot for a lot of social/family programs. It would be nice but unfortunately, it's never going to happen. People don't pay for a better America, they spend money so their own voice can be heard.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Another week, another struggle to find a legit Tryout. I'm more than willing to take suggestion for the upcoming weeks because I'm really not loving the music scene so far this year. The Doves albums was OK but what a floater, the kind of music that just falls into the background and when the album's over you forget that you ever listened to it. For this week, I decided to give Bat for Lashes a try since she seems to be getting great reviews and I kind of liked the little bit of the first songs that I heard.

Overall though, I'm having a hard time figuring out what I'm missing with some of the critically acclaimed artists of this year. Animal Collective did nothing for me and I have no idea how people find Dan Deacon's music appealing. People can't stop talking about his last album which did nothing for me besides give me a headache. I'm also not a fan of the stripped down production movement of late. Instead of feeling more intimate, it just sounds more like noise. But maybe that's the new move that will get my generation hating the music of the youth. Everyone wants to think that they'll be the hip adults that get it but listening to some of this new critically acclaimed music, I can only think that I'm getting old or music reviewers are trying too hard to be edgy.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I was in high school, I was the sports editor for the school paper and I got in trouble for not preventing the publication of a report that was laden with double entendres. The writers focused on one girl on the JV lacrosse team and wrote about her stick handling and how she liked to let everyone score. Admittedly it was a stupid moment of juvenile behavior and I learned my lesson.

Apparently, that's not a lesson that MSNBC has learned. A couple of days ago, I watched as Rachel Maddow giggled through a report on the Republican Tea Parties. It seems some of the protesters referred to their protests as "tea bagging" and, needless to say, they were completely oblivious to the alternate meaning of the term.

While Maddow was kind of silly, Countdown took it to a whole 'nother level. I'm honestly stunned that MSNBC let this go. Just watch the first two minutes and forty-five seconds of this clip.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think the phrase "building a better mousetrap" is going to be replaced by "building a better browser" in the future. No matter how much the internet evolves, browsers constantly seem to be a step behind and they are all filled with flaws.

I'm now back on Firefox which is good enough although it crashes on my Mac all the time and has a number of other flaws. I had been trying Camino, a kind of Firefox for Mac, but it just doesn't work. The Remember Password feature barely works and it seems slower on a lot of sites, especially ESPN. I downloaded Opera but that browers simply didn't work on certain sites and also had the issue of loading up the page from the last time you visited. When you go to a site, you get whatever is in the cache; you have to reload in order to get the actual up-to-date page. Finally Safari is fine but its kind of the basic, no frills browser. I haven't used Internet Explorer since I moved to Mac (and hated it when I had a PC).

So what else is out there? Why can't someone come up with a great browser? What features do you want on your personal browser? On Firefox I have a nice little bottom line/sports scores app. Is someone working on a kind of IPhone type browser? A browser which works as an organizer and internet browser? Something that you can modify so you can get alerts from things like your e-mail or Facebook account?

There has to be something out there (or, at least, on the horizon).

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been taking some time off to work on my own stuff but it's time to get back to punching a clock. To get me back into work mode, this week's songs will be about work, in one way or another. While I'm sure there will be some on-the-nose work songs like "I Go to Work" by Kool Moe Dee, the first song is going to "Back to Life" which is fitting since I work in reality TV and vacation is over. It's time to get back to life, back to reality. And I'm sure in a few months I'll be wondering however do I want to work or however do I need to?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is a definitely need to in order to, you know, survive but it would be nice to be filthy rich. So if Soul II Soul's song fits where I am, P.M. Dawn's is the opposite.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

And that child is named Miley.

Miley Cyrus's Hannah Montana movie opened with huge numbers on Friday and could make 40 - 50 million this weekend. And while most of the hype will be about the Disney machine (and rightfully so), I have to hope that this also wakes Hollywood up to the fact that females can open movies. Yeah, it's a long shot but a boy can dream, can't he? Can't Evan Rachel Wood (left) get a chance?

The reason I bring this up is because I just read Entertainment Weekly's list of funniest actresses. The list is kind of silly because there's no way to really say who is "funnier" (I mean, Jane Lynch vs. Jessica Walters vs. Allison Janney alone could keep people arguing for weeks) but what it really showed was the fact that Hollywood has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to actresses and, unfortunately, they are all being wasted.

For a while I wondered why actresses like Wood, Amy Adams, Taraji P. Henson, Isla Fisher, Kerry Washington, Penelope Cruz, etc. couldn't seem to find the roles that would land them in the Julia/Reese class. Then I noticed that current A-listers like Renee Zelwegger and Kate Hudson can't even find good roles. How in the world is an up-and-coming star going to get their chance? No wonder most talented actresses head over to TV; Samantha Who? might not be the greatest show in the world but it's probably much better than anything Christina Applegate was getting offered by film studios.

Look at this year. The next movies getting a wide release with female's as the #1 lead are "Drag Me to Hell" and Sandra Bullock's "The Proposal". This is basically it for women. Horror films or rom-coms that seem like they were supposed to come out in the late 90's. Finally there are some more female-centric films in August & September but the year will be basically 2/3's over until the women get a shot. Also, why put them all together? With the finals of March Madness and baseball's opening day just happening, don't you think now is a time in which women would have some leverage on their boyfriends when it comes to what movie they go see?

Hollywood has a class of actresses that might just be able to hold their own against the Golden Era leading ladies like Hayworth, Hepburn, Lombard, Loy, etc. Give them a chance. If it means remaking those classic era films, fine. Do something. Hollywood can't let this much talent go to waste.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My original Weekend Small Talk was going to be about Easter candy but that's kind of a given; Peeps are the king. After that, there really aren't that many options outside of jelly beans, mini milk chocolate eggs and rabbits, and delicious Reese's peanut butter cup eggs. Oh, and the disgusting Cadbury eggs.

Instead, I decided to just throw out the best rabbit/bunny related moments in film. I thought about Jack Rabbit Slim's from "Pulp Fiction" but I just don't think that scene really stands up over the test of time (the whole movie, in fact, doesn't hold up as, or at least not nearly as well as something like "Reservoir Dogs" or "True Romance").

So I'm just going to throw out the five that first came to me. Which are your favorite Rabbit/Bunny moments? Which classic material did I forget?

I'm sure there are better performances as or by Playboy bunnies but this is the one that came to mind.

One of the more intriguing and underrated characters on "The Wire".

A classic scene in film history.

This is one of my favorite films of all-time, especially because the nefarious plot of the bad guys is something that actually did happen in real life. Roger was hilarious, Jessica Rabbit was the hottest cartoon out there, and the film was an instant classic.

I'm sure that I missed some Rabbit/Bunny moments and characters but I really don't think that there's a moment better than the killer rabbit (and the related Holy Hand Grenade).

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

After watching "Parks and Recreation" and "Harper's Island", I have to say that "Southland" and "The Unusuals" look a lot better.

"Parks and Recreation" was just a miss on pretty much every level. I know people like Amy Poehler but she doesn't fit the role. (And honestly, I think time slot rival Christina Applegate is a better comedic actress). Aziz Ansari doesn't do anything with his role and Rashida Jones is just kind of there. Even worse, the documentary style that they took from "The Office" adds nothing. They'd be better off dropping it and going with a standard single camera comedy. A few of the jokes could have been better if they came about naturally rather than having it banged over our heads in an interview bite. I watched parts of "In the Motherhood" and "Samantha Who?" and both of those shows were funnier and more clever. Not that i'll watch them but they were head and shoulders better. At this point, NBC might as well air "Caroline in the City" reruns on Thursday's. (Or just show "30 Rock" and "30 Rock" reruns)

On a side note, I think the funniest thing I saw on my TV this evening was in the channel guide. I was checking what was on the movie channels and Cinemax was showing "Cleavagefield". The show description was something like naked people run from a monster. One google search later and I found a trailer for the film.

As for "Harper's Island", it was just boring. It played like a watered down straight-to-DVD horror film. At times, it was borderline parody; every character did something that made them seem like they might be the killer or the next villain. And by the time someone did die, it was just poorly done. There was no tension. No fright. No reason to continue watching. But who knows, maybe the guys who did Cleavagefield could take the script and turn it into a plumper soft-core porn, "Heffer's Island".

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Southland" premieres tonight (and is already available on Hulu) and The Unusuals started last night. Both are ensemble cop dramas that feature rich kid cops but other than that, they are pretty much the opposite of one another.

"Southland" takes place in LA which doesn't help it any. It's a gritty, documentary style production that seems like "The Shield" if it was written by Paul Haggis. The biggest issue for the pilot is that it follows three stories and there seems to be no real connection. It's like flipping through three different cop shows, one of which (the Shawn Hatosy story) features some almost laughable on-the-nose dialogue. Which is another issue. For a show that looks like a documentary, the dialogue is stilted and borderline preachy.

Still, this show could draw people in because it is subtle, dark, and more realistic than the average cop show. However, I think those qualities usually make up a cult hit which is hardly what NBC needs or could afford. I really can't see this show surviving for a second season, especially if it has to play at 9pm (since Leno owns the 10 o'clock hour). Like "Kings", NBC deserve some credit for trying something relatively new to network TV but they didn't pull it off.

As for "The Unusuals", it needs to figure out what it wants to be. There are moments when it is absurd and over-the-top and then a second later it will be a serious cop drama. They should take a look at St. Elsewhere if they want to keep up the jokes (they even use the St. Elsewhere gag of having the intercom spew jokes) but I think they'd be better off toning it down and using the absurd stuff to show how life as in the NYPD can be surreal at times.

The show was OK and I'm going to give it another shot but the premiere only got so-so ratings and it has a fairly high profile cast so I'm not sure if they can really afford to continue on unless they get more viewers.

In the end, I'd only recommend "Southland" to people who like documentary-style series and who think subtlety alone makes shows intriguing. People who like off-beat shows will probably go for "The Unusuals" but right now, I can't see either show having much crossover appeal. (Instead of Southland, I'll be checking out Harper's Island on CBS)

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to Todd for posting this... on Facebook.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Doves is one of those groups that I thought was going to break out but then they disappeared. They finally came out with a new album so let's see if they are ready to make the leap or if they are just going to settle into their niche of being an interesting indie band. This first song was not at all what I was expecting so this might be one of those albums that takes a few listens to to really appreciate.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Like any person in the world, I've always wanted to be in a band. I'd call it The Creepy Uncles and we'd end every show with "We are the Creepy Uncles and we hope we've touched you all." I have a few songs in my head but as of now, the Creepy Uncles would have to be mostly a cover band and this week's "Song of the Day' will be a song that I'd like to cover.

The first song is a karaoke staple for me, "Beautiful" by Christina Aguilera. However, I'd like to mix it up a bit, make it more of a punk/rock song, and during the break we'd throw in the chorus of "Supermodel" by Jill Sobule. It would be a crowd pleaser.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A lot of people are whining about "Fast and Furious" making 30 million on Friday. They claim that it will just inspire Hollywood to make more lousy films. While that might be true, they are missing the bigger element of ths film's success: it was a truly multicultural event. This film appealed to whites, blacks, latinos, and Asians. It may be, as I noted before, little more than car porn but it appealed to a wide demographic and it offered an escape or a diversion.

Compare that to the critical darling "Adventureland", a lily-white film that featured two leads who were basically upper-middle class and who looked down at their menial job, They acted like they were above it  all even though they didn't do a good job and got stoned/drunk while at work.

Again, this is not to defend the quality of Fast and Furious but it's really all that is out there for fans of action films.  Also, look at the films that have come out so far this year; it's almost a complete white wash. The only films that have really featured "minority" actors are the Madea and Notorious.

As for the complaints about the mainstream, it reminds me of a great exchange from Aaron Sorkin's script "The American President". An edited version is:

Lewis: They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Shepherd: People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. 

Most critics would agree with The President; the people don't really know what makes a great movie. I would argue that most people aren't looking for what critics consider "great". And they never have. If you look at some of the now classic screwball comedies of yesteryear, they were not appreciated by the critics. "Bringing Up Baby" was an unmitigated disaster when it came out while "It's a Wonderful Life" was met with mixed reviews. Now I'm not saying that anyone is going to look back at any of the F&F movies like they do those two but critics have always been harsher on mainstream fare than they should be. "The Rock" is one of the better action films out there and even it got mixed reviews.

To me, dismissing the mainstream for not appreciating artistic films is as ignorant as the mainstream dismissing art house films as just boring. People are just looking for different things out of their movie-going experience and to dismiss a film out of hand because it didn't meet your criteria is the sign of a closed mind.

Unfortunately, the divide between art house and mainstream is growing and there are very few top level directors who seem at all interested in trying to challenge themselves to work within the desires of the mainstream (let alone broaden it). Even worse, producers have realized that they have a captive audience and that they simply don't need to employ these better directors to elevate their genre. Since nobody else seems to be trying it, it's better to just roll out the latest young director and have him make a competent enough flick. In this risk adverse Hollywood that is focused simply on marketing, it just makes more sense to take the easy money and not risk trying to make a great film that could miss its mark and flop.

Fast and Furious was a perfect storm. It was a multi-cultural action film that arrived in a sort of white vacuum. It should be interesting to see if it doesn't plummet in its second week ala Watchmen but to just blame the mainstream for seeing a dumb movie is to miss the boat on what really made this movie a huge success.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If "Adventureland" is a film made for critics, "Fast and Furious" is one that is made in spite of them. Of course critics aren't going to like it.  It's little more than car porn. There are some poorly/passably acted scenes that are just there to set up the next chase.

Personally, I wasn't wowed by the chase scenes because, like the opening scene in "Quantum of Solace", I was never able to really get a handle on what was going on. Also, the chases are far more relient on CGI than in the original which takes away some of the allure. All in all, it's a competent enough, quickly paced action film that also gets points for featuring former Miss Israel Gal Gadot who is extremely easy on the eyes.

This is a film that really needs no suggestion because you already know if you are going to like it or not. The films doesn't transcend nor does it disappoint. It's the kind of films that meets expectations, no matter what the expectations may be.

And while critics can complain about films like this, the people have spoken as it is on pace to have the Biggest April Opening of All-Time. That's not to say that the movie is good but the audience seems to know what it wants. The question is whether producers will just continue to churn out the lowest common denominator or if they'll try to elevate these mainstream films.

My guess is no. Someday people might realize that the greatest challenge in show business is combining show and business and making a great film that reaches the masses. Instead "The Artists" will just keep challenging themselves with movies that most people don't want to see while the mainstream films will be handled by "The Adequate".

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Adventureland" proves that if you have talented actors give muted performances and shoot them in grainy film stock, critics will gladly overlook the cliches and illogical moments of your film. Many people seem to think that if something is low key, it can't be ridiculous. Unfortunately, "Adventureland" is indeed ridiculous and as hollow as any vapid teen dramedy. It's set in the 80's which is fitting since it is basically a typical 80's teen romance except with the contrived plotline removed.

Unfortunately, by removing the plotlines and making the characters more "real", the film loses a lot of its charm. Imagine "Some Kind of Wonderful" without the tension. Or if someone took out the plot and interesting character quirks of "One Crazy Summer."  It's a bit like "Dazed and Confused" without a single memorable quote or moment. How about "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" if everyone was just randomly wandering around New York and had nowhere to be (although to be fair, I thought this was better than "Nick and Nora"). I'd say the film was on par with the Justine Bateman/Julia Roberts flick "Satisfaction" but even that was paced better. (Oh and do NOT expect anything close to "Superbad"; it's a completely different genre) I'm sure the critics also ate up the fact that the film mocked hits like "Rock Me Amadeus" and celebrated Lou Reed but it just didn't work here. It was more "Elizabethtown" than "Almost Famous".

Kristin Stewart gave a great understated performance but this film needed someone with more personality.  The main love story was flimsy and the main characters had to carry it (ala Duplicity) and Kristin and Jesse just didn't do it. Granted, I'm sure for many people this lack is actually part of the charm but it didn't work for me. This film desperately needed to spread its focus onto other characters ala "Mystic Pizza" because the main love story just didn't have enough to carry the weight.

All that being said, if you just LOVED the romance movies I mentioned above (or if you liked Elizabethtown or Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist, then you might enjoy this film.  Or if you find understated stories to somehow be more riveting then this could be up your alley.

For the spoilery reaction, read on. 

One of the biggest issues with this film is that it was a poor little rich kid story. And I mean "kid". Jesse Eisenberg's character seemed more like a senior in high school than someone who just graduated college. In fact, I thought he was a high school kid until he mentioned grad school at Columbia. Kristin Stewart is the poor little rich girl and that's basically it.  She's a NYU student whose step-mom sucks and she is rebelling against her upper class upbringing. Again, she seems more like a teenager than college kid. By the time she was in college, she probably would have moved on to dating street artists or something.

On top of that, Eisenberg's character is somehow the belle of the ball. He's originally portrayed as this awkward kid but inexplicably every girl at the park seems to be all over him. The relationships have no real spark and just kind of start out because of nothing more than boredom.

And the film couldn't be any more cliched and some of the plot devices were laughable. When Eisenberg finds the bottle of liquor under the car seat and is like, "Oh it must be my dad's", I almost laughed. And you just KNEW that it would come up in the end to help Jesse get off the hook. On top of that, it has the awkward confontation, the make-up in the rain, the slutty seductress who could break the couple up, the nerdy friend and stupid/childish acquaintence, etc. There's literally nothing new to this except for the fact that they eliminated any semblance of a plot and toned everything down so that people mistook understatement for realness. I mean, this film was a character study with no depth and no arcs. It was a love story with no real tension and only sit-com level self-inflicted conflicts.

The fact that people are calling this real or insightful is just a sign of how much tone can change people's opinion. "She's Just Not That Into You" played things up for comedy but had more insight than this film even attempted to have. Even worse, some of the gags that were in the film were set-up horribly. The trailer actually did a better job editing together the jokes. In a couple of cases, I thought that a joke from the trailer was cut out of the film because the payoff had appeared. But later the scene that should have set-up the joke played out. The best example is the corndog joke. That could have been a decent running gag but they did nothing with it. And what should have been the set-up, Kristin Wiig's character leaving the dogs out all night so they went bad, comes near the end of the film. It's just poor editing.

In the end, this was another cliched woe-is-me romance that basically requires you to root for the main characters simply because they are the main characters.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Slashfilm.com recently posted a little snippet that was put together for The Rotten Tomatoes Show on Current TV. It's a funny idea, the Most Dramatic Typing Scenes. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a wasted premise and is just a bunch of random typing scenes.

Now I get that the main goal was probably just "Hey look at this silly premise" but this video basically shows everything that is wrong with The Rotten Tomatoes Show (and most shows about film on TV in general). First off, they didn't put much thought into it. I mean, I get it's just silly but how do you miss The Shining, "Hold your butts!" from Jurassic Park, or the dueling laptops at the start of The Running Man? Also, spend more than 10 minutes editing the thing. Give it some style. In the end, all this is is a snarky idea that they did nothing with. Which is kind of how the show is, a shoddily produced, snark heavy show that has no original thought.

That might sound harsh (OK, it is harsh) but it's par for the course. TV shows about film are usually one dimensional and offer no real insight or discussion. It's just a bunch of clips and a few opinions. So the question for the weekend is: what would be your ideal setup for show about film?

My dream show would mix reviews, news, and interviews. It would be formatted like a cable news show with some reports, some reviews, a panel discussion, etc. Basically, a mix of Siskel & Ebert, Shootout (with Peter Bart and Peter Gruber) with a news section with scoops on film and from various sites.

As for the reviews, I'd cut them down a bit and have them focus less on grades or general suggestions and more on trying to pinpoint who might like the film. Simple statements of opinion aren't enough; people can get that from their friends. What people are looking for is a frame of reference; if you liked movie A then you might like this new release, If you can't suspend your disbelief, don't bother with this one. In-depth discussions of a new release would either play as the final segment during the next week's show (called Spoiler so people who haven't seen the film can turn the show off) or would be placed online. I hate when reviewers start getting into the debate during the initial review because it just leads to them watering down their discussion so not to spoil the movie even though, in most cases, they spoil the movie anyways.

And the show would definitely be combined with a website. A site could report the daily news and then the show could give the highlights and then actually discuss what the news might mean. Perhaps we can get interviews or reaction from the involved parties. Highlights of interviews would be on the show and the full, uncut interview would be on the web. The site could also host trailers and what not.

It's time for someone to give film the news program that it deserves. Let's get some shows that actually have some thought put into them rather than the silly Entertainment Tonight shows and the brain dead review shows.

What would you want in a movie show? Which shows do you like or try to emulate?

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Not safe for work. This trailer makes Bruno look a lot more set-up than Borat did, or maybe they just went to crazier situations that seem fake. Still, it looks funny and I'll probably be there on opening weekend.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think I'm going to take a break from posting "Freaks" because I haven't been looking at it at all and, as usual, it takes a month or so of dealing with it and then I'm like "Why am I wasting my time with this?" I'm working on a trio of TV pilots right now and I'd rather focus on them then take the time to load the pages and what not. No, it doesn't take that long but it's just kind of a waste of time.

I like the idea of posting a weekly script but I'm thinking about changing it up and maybe making it some shorter, like a web series idea that I can just post once a week and maybe even take suggestions on. I probably won't start that up for a month or so so until then you'll just have to deal with my reviews and rants.  

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Don't forget to visit the SoulHonky sponsors so I can make some loot. I've racked up an amazing $4.75 so far in my blogging career. Clearly, Soulhonky.com will not be eligible for any federal bailout money.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After watching the verygoodness that was Veronica Mars season 1, I decided to give Rob Thomas's newish show "Cupid" a shot. As you might have heard, the show is a bit of a phenomenon since it's a revamped version of a show that failed eleven years ago. The original version of the show starred Jeremy Piven
 and tanked. Still, ABC execs apparently liked the idea enough to give it a second chance. The outcome? It's OK. I'm a fan of Thomas's writing but there's no real sense of urgency to the show. I might give it another chance but it's basically watching a contrived rom-com from the perspective of the contrivance. It's one of those shows that is perfectly OK, which isn't enough to survive in the TV universe. I don't think they could have really done much of anything better; it's just a premise than doesn't really lend itself to weekly viewing. I think Thomas, like Josh Schwartz, might be better suited for film or more focused one-off seasons.

That being said, I tried looking for old shows that I wish they would give another chance to (I'm sure half of the people out there are thinking of a Manimal joke right now) but the one thing I kept coming back to was a high school show that actually took place in, you know, high school. A new private eye drama could be good too, and I mean one that doesn't have an outsider inexplicably joining the ranks of the police and working like a cop (ala The Mentalist and Castle, although I don't mind Castle that much. It's almost like a Y2K version of Murder, She Wrote).  

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm currently working on three pilot scripts for shows that I've been toying with in my head for far too long but other than my writing (which has been inconsistent at best), I have to say that I've pretty much whiffed on all of my New Year's Resolutions. So the latest Biauralgraphy isn't much peppier than the previous entry but what can I say? I have to refocus and take control in April.

Lala didn't have all the songs that I wanted so I ignored some but I found a youtube version of the finale song (which even has the most recent SoulHonky Quote of the Moment in the lyrics). So here it is, this month's hopefully cathartic SoulMix. Give it a listen and then get to making the most of the next thirty days.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Holidays often inspire good movies. Even a silly celebration like Groundhog's Day can be fodder for a classic film. But what are the worst? I'm sure there are some terrible Christmas movies but what about other lesser holidays? One of the worst has to be "April Fool's Day". It's so bad that one doc on horror movies basically blamed it for ending the golden era of horror films. I think that's going a bit overboard but it's an undeniably bad movie.

So what else is out there?

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)